That evil, evil man! - Page 3

Giancarlo · May 7, 2003, 18:08

Ah ha.. speer says I am making an ass out of myself... sheesh.. look at yourself.

You know I had it... you can have your pathetic thread to yourselves.

SlowwHand · May 7, 2003, 18:08

rah · May 7, 2003, 18:10

CHILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Or at least keep it good natured. It's getting hard to tell.

RAH
and Boshko, take a nap.

Sava · May 7, 2003, 18:10

Quote:

I find the leftist's anti-business attitudes to be disturbing

you probably stereotype me as a "leftist" for instance... why don't you go into the other threads and read about my attitudes on business... actually, don't... I wouldn't want to interrupt your silly stereotype-filled posts.

Oerdin · May 7, 2003, 18:11

Wow, look at those cans. They must be 30 years old. I mean they look like pull tops and not the pop tab everyone uses now days.

Of course a sexually frustratied person may have just pulled the tab off but still...

Sava · May 7, 2003, 18:11

heheh RAH... it's all in good fun

anyways, I agree

[/endthreadjack]

SlowwHand · May 7, 2003, 18:12

My brother rips the tabs off his beer cans.
His 'stache gets pulled by it if he doesn't.

Al B. Sure! · May 7, 2003, 18:13

Sava:

so you completely ignored my point that unions can prevent business abuse without government intervention?

Sava · May 7, 2003, 18:14

Speer: I ignore just about everything you say

Sava · May 7, 2003, 18:17

This thread has been Floyded, Fezzed, Speered, and Zylka'ed. Time to close it.

EDIT: Zylka's post must have been deleted.

rah · May 7, 2003, 18:19

Hmmm, what happend to the ZYLKA post. Maybe another mod is also watching. If I do see another one like that, chilling will be a reality instead of a nice warning.

RAH

Zylka · May 7, 2003, 18:19

21

Al B. Sure! · May 7, 2003, 18:20

well damn are you a jackass... i take the time to respond and you just ignore my point?

i guess you just will sit back and be content that you showed David Floyd as a heartless bastard... completely ignoring my point

Ming · May 7, 2003, 18:22

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Hmmm, what happend to the ZYLKA post. Maybe another mod is also watching. If I do see another one like that, chilling will be a reality instead of a nice warning.

RAH

I deleted it... and I am currently "discussing it with him" via ICQ as I type this

Oerdin · May 7, 2003, 18:23

But I didn't get to see it before you cut it.

Zylka's posts are usually worth a snicker or two.

Zylka · May 7, 2003, 18:23

I am a fat bastard.

Spiffor · May 7, 2003, 18:24

It was about having collective sex through the unexpected end

Oerdin · May 7, 2003, 18:24

But are you a banned bastard?

EDIT: I just read Spiffor's post.

Bosh · May 7, 2003, 18:27

Damn, I don't think I've ever seen anyone as wested as he is now. I wonder how much of that gin he had.... Ah well, what I have had has worn out by now...

Ming · May 7, 2003, 18:27

The next off topic or mean spirited post is going to get somebody in BIG TROUBLE....

Al B. Sure! · May 7, 2003, 18:31

anyway...

could we get a less biased source up on here outlining this new law?

Urban Ranger · May 8, 2003, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
All it did was hurt people. They didn't want that type of protection.

There are always exceptions, yet most labour laws exist to correct some imbalances between companies and workers.

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
So while I may dissagree with some of the things being proposed (once it's verified of course

) There are a few changes that could be beneficial to the blue collar worker.

I doubt it. The conditions that caused these laws to come into being still exist. AFAIK, these conditions have worsened in recent years, as compared to, say, the 1990's.

Bosh · May 8, 2003, 03:08

wow, can't believe I was that drunk that early in the day. hope I provided entertainment to all involved.

there, of course, are already plenty of ways that companies subvert workplace regulations as is, such as harsh limits on bathroom breaks for Walmart employees

but the chipping away of it is probably only going to continue...

orange · May 8, 2003, 03:15

Quote:

Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?

You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal...

LMAO!

Imran Siddiqui · May 8, 2003, 06:49

Quote:

I'm sorry, you've called che a criminal and a pig in the space of two posts.

Well, he's called Bush worse. Giving him some of his medicine.

--

Oh, and if true, I agree with the Bush proposals. Plato and rah show why the arcaic rules regarded overtime need to be junked, especially for federal employees.

TCO · May 8, 2003, 08:50

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Sure, why not? As to employing kids, that sounds like a parenting problem, not a government problem, and certainly not my problem.

As to lower wages, people should get paid what they are worth in terms of labor. What they are worth is simply what the corporation is willing to pay them and what they will accept. There's no coercion.

Floyyd is right. The sooner Che learns that the better. Then he'll be better able to take care of himself.

HershOstropoler · May 8, 2003, 08:50

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
After hours they wanted to hang around and do special projects, (like rebuiding rusted out old classics) It was afterhours so they drank a few beers and really took their time. They didn't feel that they should get time and a half for putzing around. So we made them "quasi managers" and paid their extra time as a bonus calculated on a % of what those special projects for eventually sold for.

How was that a problem? Would it have been ok if you had paid them on a contract per car?

rah · May 8, 2003, 09:01

We could have paid them a bonus/contract per car but we still would have had to pay them 1.5 for the overtime hours they worked on site. The department of Labor was quite specific. Any hours over the standard workweek on site. Overtime. We were under close scrutiny due to a claim made by a disgruntaled ex-employee for a totally different reason. Otherwise no one would have even know what we were doing.

The claimed that any such arrangments were just ploys to get around the overtime regulations. And since that's what we were trying to do, even though for good reasons, it was impossible to challenge it.

RAH

HershOstropoler · May 8, 2003, 09:25

"Any hours over the standard workweek on site. Overtime."

But those hours were not ordered by the employer. Looks a bit overreaching. If people have a party at the office, do they get paid overtime, too?

rah · May 8, 2003, 09:33

Partying and working projects are two totally different things. But if done together, it's still considered work.

We even tried making them supervisors for the apprentices, but since they still actually did production work 90% of the time, that was dissallowed also. It's hard to say they supervisors when they have a grinding wheel in their hand.

RAH
This was over 20 years ago.